How much more would it cost the manufacturer to include an SD card slot? It does seem to be a feature desired by a lot of people, so why not include that as an option?

Although many will give the simple answer that they just want to be able to charge you more for the models with more storage, the other reason for excluding it is complexity of the UI.
Where do you install an app? Where do you save it's data to?
What if you have two different versions of an app, one in main memory, one on an SD card?
What happens if you've got a shortcut on the desktop to an app on an SD card, and you remove the SD card?
Can you install widgets on an SD card?
What if an app has registered that it can handle a certain filetype, and then the SD card it is installed on is removed? Do you just fail to open that type, or be clever enough to display a warning explaining what has happened?
All of these issues are solvable, but they increase complexity, and make things more flexible, but less simple, for users.
Apple's design concepts have always rated simplicity higher than flexibility, and once they have excluded SD cards, it is easier for their competitors to do the same.

But doesn't Android already need to address all those issues, regardless of whether the manufacturer chooses to have an SD card slot on a particular device?

I think you've already encountered some of the complexity with your new device
'Android' doesn't have to deal with support issues, or be blamed if the device is complicated to use, individual device manufacturers do.
If the issues are addressed, but not in very user-friendly ways, device manufacturers might choose to just avoid the whole issue.

But doesn't Android already need to address all those issues, regardless of whether the manufacturer chooses to have an SD card slot on a particular device?

Yeap, but a lot of people claim that Android is too hard to use.

And there are a lot of ways to get around the problem. Android allows you to place apps on a removable SD card, but I don't think that's necessary. Most people talk about placing data (like movies) on the card, not software. Or look at computers: very few people try to place software on removable drives and very little software will run on removable drives (at least in the world of Windows). People rarely complain about that either!

So I think the original post was bringing up issues that very few people would even care about.

But doesn't Android already need to address all those issues, regardless of whether the manufacturer chooses to have an SD card slot on a particular device?

Kind of but not really, murraypaul is partly correct.... Removing a card slot does lead to a simpler design. I'm of the type that would spend a little more time learning so I can optimize my usage. Many folks aren't.

Android is really only optimized to have one SD Card slot. Apps that can make use of card slots or install on a card slot can only save to the default /sdcard directory unless developers, manufactures write software to handle different locations. It's usually file managers and games that do this.

However many of the manufactures, including google, have defaulted to using the /sdcard slot to mount internal memory. Which makes some of the issues murraypual made moot in most cases.

Android allows you to place apps on a removable SD card, but I don't think that's necessary. Most people talk about placing data (like movies) on the card, not software.

I am one who has no need to store apps on the SD card. I don't load the tablet with a lot of apps, so there's plenty of storage for them on the device itself.

As I mentioned earlier, I only have music on the SD card right now. If someone doesn't need non-cloud access to lots of music, videos or documents on their tablet, then I see no need for an SD card. If I didn't take my tablet away from home, then I probably wouldn't need it.

Those of us who want an SD slot will buy from manufacturers who do provide that. It's just a shame that Google didn't include that because in all other regards the Nexus 7 looks like a fantastic tablet.

Just browsed through the Nexus 7 manual and it definitely supports USB OTG. Too bad it doesn't have a full-size USB host port. Having to use a microUSB Male B to USB Female A makes adding external storage awkward. There are some really tiny USB flash drives (e.g. SanDisk Cruzer Fit) that would be barely noticeable had they included a full-size port.

There's certainly no better deal for $200. I think acer has a tegra 3 7" out for that, but the resolution and screen quality don't compare, especially for a reader. Also if this moves as many units as folks think it will, that means more and better accessories than most other Android tablets, even the nook/fire, since this will probably be fully functional.

I have to agree, although there may be other noteworthy small tablets in that price range coming soon.

Quote:

I think acer has a tegra 3 7" out for that, but the resolution and screen quality don't compare, especially for a reader.

That would be the 7" Acer A110, which was announced earlier this month. It's scheduled for release late this year and has ICS, Tegra3 (quad core), microSD, microUSB, and HDMI. The price will be at (or under) $200.

My 7" Acer A100 has a problem at one viewing angle. It's not a big deal for me; I just flip it around the other way when I'm viewing it from the wrong angle. The Nexus 7's screen does have nice specs, and I assume it is superior to the A110 (Nexus 7 has a 1280x800 IPS display versus A110's 1024×600). That said, my A100 has the same screen resolution as the upcoming A110, and I don't have a problem reading on it. I also read on my larger A500 tablet. I do, however, prefer reading on an eink Kindle over any backlit device.

Certainly pixel density is a different strokes for different folks thing. It's why I sent my Nook Tablet (160ish ppi) back to wait for this more than 6 months ago. It's not unreadable even to me, but it isn't comfortable either. When I moved from my 140ppi TX to my 260ppi TP2 (both were my primary reading devices), I was spoiled beyond repair.

I don't know for sure what my minimum pixel density for a tablet would be, but right now I'm shooting for 200+. The N7 has 215ppi.

Certainly pixel density is a different strokes for different folks thing. It's why I sent my Nook Tablet (160ish ppi) back to wait for this more than 6 months ago. It's not unreadable even to me, but it isn't comfortable either. When I moved from my 140ppi TX to my 260ppi TP2 (both were my primary reading devices), I was spoiled beyond repair.

I don't know for sure what my minimum pixel density for a tablet would be, but right now I'm shooting for 200+. The N7 has 215ppi.

Yes, I think the higher density will make a difference, but I don't think it needs to be >300dpi like iPad/iPhone. And given the tradeoff in terms of CPU/GPU power consumption I'd prefer it to be only as much as it needs to be so my eyes don't register any lack of smoothness at normal viewing distance, and no more than that.

Are you sure about that? USB client and USB host capabilities are different things. Very few USB clients (devices that you plug into a PC) can act as a USB host (have USB sticks plugged into them). What makes you say that this device will have USB host capabilities? Some tablets do indeed have it (Samsung do, for example), but why do you believe that the Nexus will?

I've had many emails and questions about whether USB-OTG (On The Go) is supported on the Nexus 7, and didn't touch on it when I originally hit publish becuause I wasn't entirely sure. I've now confirmed that USB-OTG is supported on the Nexus 7, and works on the current Android 4.1 non-final build that has been sampled. That's encouraging, and I'll test it myself when I get home and to my miniUSB OTG adapter.